The Senate took up the bill, “to authorize the legal representatives of the Marquis de Maison Rouge, and those claiming under him, to institute a suit against the United States by petition, in the court of the United States, to try the validity of their title.”

(This case has been repeatedly before Congress in one shape or other, has been often discussed with great attention, and is familiar to most readers. The claim is for two or three hundred thousand acres of land, in Louisiana, and the title rests on the validity of the Spanish grant to de Maison Rouge. The claim has passed from hand to hand, and is now understood to be owned by Mr. S. Girard, of Philadelphia.)

On this bill a debate took place, which continued more than two hours, comprehending, in its scope, the history of the claim, the propriety of giving to an individual the new privilege proposed by the bill, the other modes by which it was suggested the title might be ascertained, &c. Those who advocated the bill, were Messrs. VAN BUREN, BERRIEN, ROWAN, and JOHNSTON, of Lou.; and those who opposed it, were Messrs. RANDOLPH, TAZEWELL, HOLMES, and EATON. In the course of the debate, MR. RANDOLPH moved the indefinite postponement of the bill; and, on the question being taken thereon, it was decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS – Messrs. Barton, Bell, Chandler, Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Hayne, Lloyd, of Mass. Macon, Marks, Randolph, Tazewell, Woodbury – 13.

NAYS – Messrs. Berrien, Bouligny, Branch, Chase, Clayton, Cobb, Ellis, Findlay, Hendricks, Holmes, Johnson, of Ken. Johnston, of Lou. Kane, King, Knight, McIlvaine, Mills, Noble, Robbins, Rowan, Ruggles, Sandford, Seymour, Van Buren, Van Dyke, White, Willey, William – 28.

The question then being on certain amendments reported to the bill by Mr. VAN BUREN, from the Judiciary Committee, a motion was made to adjourn, which prevailed.